| |
Grazing Factsheets
Livestock Nutrition
Feeding Cows
Pasture-Based Feeding
Programs for Dairy Cattle
Relative Forage Quality (RFQ)
The following factsheet is available to download and requires
Adobe
Acrobat Reader 5.0 or higher (FREE software).
|
Livestock Nutrition
Illinois
|
General Information
Of the factors that influence the growth and reproductive performance
of beef cows, proper nutrition is probably the most critical. Because
feed costs represent over half the total cost in a cow-calf production
system, it is very important to keep feed costs low while meeting your
animals’ nutritional needs. Vital nutrients in beef cattle diets include
water, energy, protein, calcium, phosphorus, potassium, sodium, trace
minerals, and vitamins.
Types of Diets
Depending on your circumstances, you may choose from a number of
feeding approaches for your herd. The traditional approach is to allow
the cattle unlimited access to pasture or hay. But if the forage is not
sufficiently high in protein and other nutrients, the cows may be
malnourished even though they have all they can eat. Poor quality forage
and crop residues have a high proportion of fiber to protein which takes
longer for cows to digest. Consequently, cows can eat only about one and
a half times their body weight per day of low-quality forage. If the
forage is of high quality, however, cows can consume about three percent
of their body weight daily. Unlimited access to feed is sometimes
referred to as ad lib, short for the Latin ad libitim.
It may be necessary to supplement a low- to medium-quality forage diet
with high-quality hay, or with soybean meal, grain, or co-products like
distillers dried grains or corn gluten feed. With supplementation, cows
can actually digest more low-quality forage—up to two percent of their
body weight. Grain supplementation should be no more than 0.5 percent of
the cow’s body weight (BW). If the forage is of such poor quality
that more supplementation is required, you should consider using
byproducts.
The most economical way to feed beef cows is to graze the cows.
Brassicas and small grains with cornstalks can be used to provide fall
and winter grazing very economically. If the cattle need to be fed due
to snow cover or other factors related to your farm, you should develop
a low cost method of feeding the cows. Following is a brief discussion
of the factors influencing nutrition and some example diets. If your
cows are thin or heavy milking, you will need higher energy diets than
the examples provided. If your cows are larger than those described in
the example, they will need proportionally more feed.
Water
Water is often the forgotten nutrient. It is important to have an
adequate supply of fresh, clean water available for cattle. To be
sure your water is not contaminated with chemical run-off or biological
organisms, you should have it tested by one of the commercial services
that are widely available.
Energy and Protein
The primary nutrients of concern for beef cattle are energy
(referred to as “total digestible nutrition,” or TDN) and
protein (also called “crude protein,” or CP). The example
diets would need to be modified to account for these factors.
Table 1 presents the composition of common feeds, including their
dry matter (DM) factor, energy and protein provided, and the presence
(+, ++) or absence (-) of the macro minerals calcium, phosphorus, and
potassium. Actual values vary widely—it is advisable to pay for a
nutrient analysis of your forage. If you buy commercial feed mixes, you
can use the content analysis provided by the manufacturer. All values
are expressed on a dry-matter basis to permit comparison of feeds that
vary in moisture content.
Table 1. Composition of common feedstuffs
Nutrients |
Feed |
DD |
TDN |
CP |
Ca |
P |
K |
Alfalfa (early bloom) |
88 |
53.0 |
18.6 |
++ |
+ |
++ |
Alfalfa (late bloom) |
88 |
50.0 |
12.9 |
++ |
- |
++ |
Brome (vegetative) |
88 |
56.0 |
14.6 |
++ |
+ |
++ |
Broom (late bloom) |
88 |
53.0 |
6.0 |
++ |
- |
++ |
Corn (crackle) |
87 |
91.0 |
8,6 |
- |
+ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Corn silage |
35 |
69.0 |
8.0 |
- |
- |
+ |
Clover (red; fresh) |
25 |
64.0 |
15.6 |
++ |
+ |
++ |
Clover (red-hay) |
88 |
55.0 |
15.5 |
++ |
+ |
++ |
Fescue (vegetative) |
88 |
61.0 |
12.4 |
++ |
+ |
++ |
Fescue (late bloom) |
88 |
46.0 |
7.4 |
++ |
- |
++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oats (rolled) |
88 |
77.0 |
13.3 |
- |
+ |
|
Oat Hay (eraly bloom) |
88 |
64.3 |
9.2 |
++ |
+ |
++ |
Orchardgrass (vegetative) |
88 |
72.0 |
18.4 |
++ |
+ |
++ |
Orchardgrass (late bloom) |
88 |
54.0 |
8.4 |
++ |
- |
++ |
Sorghum silage |
35 |
58.0 |
7.5 |
+ |
- |
++ |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Soybean meal |
90 |
90.0 |
44.0 |
+ |
+ |
++ |
Sudex silage |
35 |
55.0 |
10.8 |
+ |
- |
++ |
Wheat (cracked) |
90 |
92.0 |
13.5 |
- |
+ |
|
Wheat silage |
35 |
61.9 |
11.9 |
++ |
+ |
++ |
Table 2 shows the typical composition of some common feeds and
their prices. Using the values from this table and from Tables 1 and 3,
diets were calculated for a 1,200-pound dry cow (last third of
gestation) and for a 1,200-pound lactating cow in average condition with
average milk production. Tables 4 and 5 show the calculated amounts and
costs of various diets for these scenarios.
Table 2. Typical feedstuff values
|
TDM. % |
CP, % |
DM, % |
Cost, $ |
Corn |
91 |
8.3 |
88 |
2.10/bu |
Corn Gluten feed |
87 |
20.0 |
40 |
42/ton |
Corn silage |
72 |
8.0 |
35 |
20/ton |
DDGS (dry) |
88 |
28.0 |
90 |
85/ton |
Alfalfa hay |
60 |
19.5 |
85 |
85/ton |
Grass hay |
54 |
12 |
85 |
85/ton |
Mixed hay |
54 |
12 |
85 |
60/ton |
Poor hay (mature fescue) |
46 |
7 |
85 |
30/ton |
DDGS (wet) |
88 |
28.0 |
45 |
28/ton |
Soybean meal |
90 |
44 |
90 |
162/ton |
Table 3. Hay waste
Feeding Method waste |
Limit fed with corn - small bales or ground hay |
0 |
Limit fed - bunk, small bales or ground hay |
10 |
Ad libitum ("unlimited") - bunk, small bales or
ground hay |
10 |
Ad libitum - big bales |
30 |
Ad libitum - big bales (outside) |
40 |
Note: Table 4 shows there is a large variation in cost per day
for the diets—they range from 59 cents to $2.14 per day. If the cows
were fed for 120 days, the high-cost diet for the dry cow would be $186
more (per cow) than the low-cost diet. That difference could certainly
“make or break” your profit situation!
Table 4. Calculated diets for a dry cow (1,200 lbs.)
|
Lbs. (as fed) |
Cost/d, $ |
Limited corn -hay |
8.2-7 |
.62 |
Limited DDGS (wet) - hay |
15.6-7 |
.53 |
Limited DDGS (dry) - hay |
7.8-7 |
.58 |
Limited gluten - corn |
6.6-6.6 |
.50 |
Limited gluten |
29 |
.59 |
Alfalfa* (ad lib, big bale) |
50.4 |
2.14 |
Alfalfa (limit, bulk) |
22 |
.94 |
Mixed hay* (limit, bulk) |
24.4 |
.73 |
Mixed hay* (ad lib, big bale) |
47.4 |
1.42 |
Poor hay - DDGS (dry) |
29.4-7.4 |
.75 |
Poor hay, mixed hay |
29.4-10.1 |
.74 |
Poor hay, alfalfa hay |
29.4-6.9 |
.73 |
Corn silage - DDGS (dry) |
37.1-1.0 |
.41 |
Corn siage - SBM |
37.1-0.8 |
.43 |
Table 5. Calculated diets for a lactating cow (1,200 lbs.)
|
Lbs. (as fed) |
Cost/d, $ |
Limit corn, hay SBM |
13.7, 1.4 |
.90 |
Limit glutrn |
39.4 |
.90 |
Alfalfa (limit, bunk) |
33.1 |
1.40 |
Alfalfa* (ad lib, big bale) |
50.4 |
2.14 |
Mixed hay (ad lib, big bale) |
47.4 |
1.42 |
Corn silage, SMB |
59.2, 2.8 |
.96 |
Acknowledgments
Dan B. Faulkner, Extension Specialist, Beef
University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, IL
The U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,
or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply
to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative
means for communication of program information (Braille, large
print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center
at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination,
write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410
or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer. |
Download
This Factsheet
PDF |
|
Livestock Nutrition
Illinois
|
General Information
A successful feeding system (pasture-based system, traditional
component feeding system, and Total Mixed Ration or TMR) should meet the
nutrient requirements of the cow, use economical feed sources available
in the area, and optimize profitability and income over feed costs. When
considering a management intensive grazing (MIG) system, dairy managers
must consider and manage the following factors;
1. Optimize rumen fermentation
2. Manage dry matter intake
3. Feed sorting and selection
4. Effective use of fiber
5. Economics and positioning other feeds
Optimizing Rumen Fermentation
The challenge with a pasture-based feeding program is to maintain
rumen pH values from 5.8 to 6.2 that will support optimal digestibility,
nitrogen flow, and desirable components. If pasture quality is less than
35% neutral detergent fiber (NDF) and over 80 percent digestibility,
rumen pH can drop below 5.8. If additional fermentable carbohydrates are
added such as, molasses or barley, pH levels could drop below the
optimal level. However, some starch and by-product grains can stimulate
microbial growth and provide needed energy.
• Maintaining rumen pH from 5.8 to 6.2 will be challenge with high
quality legume grass forages. Lush pasture will be low in effective
fiber due to low level of NDF (neutral detergent fiber) and rapid
rate of passage. New Zealand workers reported that cows consuming
only clover and grass pasture (no concentrate) experienced rumen pH
under 5.5 with no supplemental grain. Adding 2 to 5 pounds of long
forage particles (over one inch in length) can form and maintain a
rumen or hay raft in the rumen.
• Limit the amount of a concentrate mixture to 5 to 6 pounds per
meal to avoid “slug feeding” of starch leading to lower rumen pH and
lactic acid formation. Providing 2 to 5 pounds of long forage prior
to the grain and pasture consumption can increase rumen pH.
• Balance the rate of available nitrogen (protein) and carbohydrate
degradation in the rumen by feeding grain and/or corn silage before
lush pasture is consumed. The challenge is pasture that is low in
rumen fermentable carbohydrate while containing excessive degradable
and total protein. Feeding starch or digestible NDF (by-product feed
such as corn gluten feed or soy hulls) before milking allows cows to
return directly to the pasture after milking.
• Provide adequate effective fiber by maintaining a minimum of 5
pounds of forage particles that are over one inch or longer in
length. Feeding 1 to 2 pounds of straw (one pound of straw functions
similarly to 2 to 3 pounds of long hay), 5 pounds of baled hay, or
10 pounds of silage dry matter containing 40 to 60 percent on the
top two boxes of the Penn State Particle Separator unit. These
adjustments should adjust fiber levels.
• Manage rumen turnover by slowing down rapidly fermentable pasture
fiber by adding some long forage to the diet. Processing grains can
change the rate and site of starch fermentation while by-product
feeds (such as wheat midds, soy hulls, or corn gluten feed) can
dilute starch levels in grain mixtures.
Managing Dry Matter Intake
Optimizing dry matter intake is another key factor in successful
pasture-based feeding systems and programs. Energy is the first limit
nutrient for milk yield, milk components, and reproduction in high
producing cows. Dry matter intake (energy) can be limiting to 50 pounds
of 4% fat corrected milk. New Zealand researchers report cows can
consume about four pounds of pasture dry matter per hour of aggressive
or active grazing. Six to eight hours are the normal daily grazing
times. If higher levels of milk production are desired, additional dry
matter will be needed. Dairy managers have three choices: additional
forage (such as corn silage), more grain, and/or a partial TMR. To
enhance pasture dry matter intake, pasture can be cut and allowed to
partially wilt, allowing for great dry matter consumption. Grazing
activity (distance walked and slope) will require more energy (can
represent 4 to 5 pounds of milk energy used for walking).
Methods to achieve higher dry matter intake (if this is economical and
is your goal) will require supplemental feeds that complement pasture
nutrients and do not substitute for low-priced pasture nutrient sources.
• Cows under 50 pounds of 4% fat corrected milk may support this
milk yield with high quality pasture only.
• Cows producing over 50 pounds of 4% fat corrected milk will
require more energy, usually gained from concentrate and silage
sources (energy is limiting).
• Cows producing over 70 pounds of 4% fat corrected milk will need
more energy, added rumen undegraded protein (such as heat treated
soy meal), and supplemental fat (energy and amino acids are limiting
at this level of production).
Adding a buffer (such as sodium bicarbonate) can increase dry matter
intake by stabilizing rumen pH (adding 0.3 to 0.5 pounds per cow per day
to the grain mixture or partial TMR). Buffers can reduce concentrate
intake at higher levels. To improve pasture intake, offering cows a
fresh allocation (new paddock or moving an electric wire) every 12 to 24
hours is a recommended procedure.
One approach to estimate pasture intake is to calculate the amount of
pasture dry matter based on NDF intake. Wisconsin workers report dairy
cows will consume 1.2 percent of the cow’s body weight as total NDF.
Using this guideline with high quality pasture (40% NDF), a 1000 pound
Jersey cow could eat 12 pounds of total NDF or 30 pounds of pasture dry
matter (12 pounds divided by 0.40 which is 40% NDF in pasture expressed
as a decimal). As forage NDF increases (pasture quality drops), pasture
dry matter also declines reduces energy intake.
Feed Sorting and Selection
Pasture provides another challenge as cows can selectively graze
legumes and/or grasses available and different plant parts (leaves or
stems) leading to undesirable rumen pH and fermentation characteristics.
If supplemental feeds are offered, control intake to maintain uniform
consumption with adequate bunk space for feed access or along a hot wire
in the pasture. One example would be to offer supplemental feed (corn
silage, urea, minerals, molasses, and ear corn) prior to milking with
adequate bunks which allows all cows to eat similar amounts of this
partial TMR (PMR) before they milk.
For dairy cows, pastures should be clipped after each rotation to
control weeds and unpalatable pasture (stems and plants going to seed).
Some dairy managers will follow the lactating cows with dry cows or
heifers to consume the lower quality pasture dry matter.
Effective Fiber
Based on New Zealand and Ireland data, the effective pasture NDF
ranges from 35 to 40 percent. Chemical NDF pasture levels can be low at
35% NDF (U.S. forages range from 40 to 55%). New Zealand worker
recommend a minimum of 15 to 17% effective NDF based on pasture (38%
grass NDF times 40% effective NDF). If lush pasture contains lower NDF
values (new pasture, clovers, or selective grazing), rumen pH and feed
digestibility can be less than optimal. If fermentable carbohydrates are
fed with these pasture qualities (such as corn or barley grain),
effective NDF levels need to be raised to 18 to 20% from hay, by-product
feeds, and/or straw. Estimating effective NDF is difficult and labs do
not routinely offer tests. The Penn State Forage Separator Box is used
to estimate effective particle length for silages and Total Mixed
Rations (TMR) (percent of feed particles in the top two boxes). If
effective NDF is marginal, dairy managers may observe the following
characteristics.
• Low milk components, especially milk fat (drop of 0.3 to 0.5
percentage points)
• Loose manure or low fecal scores (less than 3 on a 1 to 5 range)
• Lameness and abnormal hoof growth patterns
• Free choice consumption of sodium bicarbonate
• Licking or eating of dirt
• Lack of cud chewing
Economics of Pasture-Based Feeding Systems
The profitability of pasture-based intensive pasture based systems is
one factor that appeals to dairy managers. Table 1 lists university
field studies comparing grazing and non-grazing farms.
Table 1. Profitability of grazing expressed as dollars of net
farm income ($NFI) per cow and comparative dollar advantage of the
grazing herds.
State (year) |
Non-grazing |
Grazing |
Difference |
|
--------------$NFI/cow------------------ |
New York (2000) |
294 |
310 |
+ 16 |
Great lakes (2000) |
223 |
395 |
+172 |
Maryland (1996-2000) |
367 |
660 |
+293 |
Wisconsin (1999) |
290 |
331 |
+ 41 |
New York (2001) |
496 |
555 |
+ 59 |
New York workers monitored 58 grazing herds (85 cows per herd) and
105 non-grazing herds (83 cows per herds) from 1996 to 2001. The
following differences were reported:
• 1,008 pounds less milk per cow for the grazing herds
• Net farm income per cow was $71 higher for the grazing herds
• Veterinary and medicine costs were $13 less per cow for the
grazing herds
• Machinery costs were $62 per cow lower for the grazing herds
• Investment per cow was $937 less per cow for the grazing herd.
These studies indicate that pasture-based systems can be economically
competitive, but milk production declines must be minimized, milk cow
nutrient needs must be met, and managers must avoid large investments in
facilities and equipment. Dairy managers also report less hoof and leg
problems, lower culling rates, and extra replacement heifers that can be
sold. Dairy managers have three nutrient approaches with a pasture-based
systems.
• Approach 1. Supplement 2 to 4 pounds of grain (New Zealand
system) or 10 percent of the total ration dry matter. Potential milk
yield could be 30 to 50 pounds of milk per cow per day or 12,000 to
15,000 pounds of milk per cow annually.
• Approach 2. Supplement 2 to 5 pounds of forage dry matter (corn
silage or hay) and feed one pound of grain for each 5 pounds or 30
percent of ration dry matter. Potential milk yield could be 40 to 60
pounds of milk per cow per day or 15,000 to 17,000 pounds of milk
per cow annually.
• Approach 3. Supplement 50 percent of the dry matter from PMR and
50 percent of the dry matter from pasture. Potential milk yield
could be 60 to 80 pounds of milk per cow per day or 17,000 to 20,000
pound of milk per cow annually.
Acknowledgments
• Mike Hutjens, Extension Dairy Specialist, Urbana, IL
• Ed Ballard, Extension Animal Systems Educator, Forages, Effingham, IL
• Dave Fischer, Extension Animal Systems Educator, Dairy, Edwardsville,
IL
• University of Illinois, Urbana, IL
The U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,
or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply
to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative
means for communication of program information (Braille, large
print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center
at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination,
write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410
or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer. |
Download
This Factsheet
PDF |
|
Livestock Nutrition
Illinois
|
General Information
Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) is a new index to rank the quality of
forages. Such an index is helpful in ranking forages for sale or
inventorying forages to animal groups to meet certain quality needs in the
ration.
This fact sheet is a follow-up to an earlier one (November 2000) titled
Forage Quality.
Relative Feed Value (RFV) has been of great value for years as a quality
index for ranking cool-season grasses and legumes based on combining
digestibility and intake potential. These values have been calculated from
acid detergent fiber (ADF) and neutral detergent fiber (NDF).
With introduction in 2001 of new approaches to determine animal requirements
in the National Research Council Nutrient Requirements for Dairy Cattle,
there was an opportunity to improve RFV through use of newer analyses and
equations.
Thus the concept of Relative Forage Quality (RFQ) was introduced as a method
to better predict animal performance from the analysis of forages.
Differences Between RFV and RFQ
RFV is based on the concept of digestible dry matter intake relative to a
standard forage according to the following formula:
RFV = (DMI, as % of BW) x (DDM, as % of DM) ÷ 1.29
Where: DMI = Dry matter intake
DDM =
Digestible dry matter
BW = Body
weight
DM = Dry
matter
Dry matter intake was estimated from neutral detergent fiber and digestible
dry matter estimated from acid detergent fiber. The constant, 1.29, was
chosen so that RFV = 100 for full bloom alfalfa hay. The constant was the
expected DDM intake, as % of BW, for full-bloom alfalfa based on animal
data.
RFQ uses the same concept and format except that TDN (total digestible
nutrients) is used rather than DDM. In other words, RFQ has a digestible
fiber component and is calculated as follows:
RFQ = (DMI, as % of BW) x (TDN, as % of DM) ÷ 1.23
RFQ adjusts intake for digestible fiber. Research has shown that intake is
affected by digestibility of the fiber.
RFQ appears to give a much better quality estimate for grasses and
legume-grass mixtures.
RFQ can be used for all forages, including warm-season grasses and brassicas
(turnips, kale, rape, etc.). However, RFQ should not be used for corn silage
because so much of the energy differences in corn silage relate to starch
availability, which is not considered in RFQ.
Relationship Between RFV and RFQ
Analysis from numerous forage samples shows a strong correlation between
RFV and RFQ.
The intent with RFQ was to have the same mean and range in forage analysis
as RFV. Therefore, RFQ could be substituted for RFV without making economic
and other management changes. It appears that RFQ can be substituted for RFV
and they will be similar in about 60% of the samples.
In some individual forage samples, RFV and RFQ varied by over 20 points.
When differences like these do occur, it is believed that RFQ will be a
better estimate of animal performance than RFV. Also, RFQ more accurately
discounts heat damaged hay or haylage.
In instances where RFQ was higher than RFV, the hay seller could have
received more money for the hay (or the buyer could have simply received a
good deal) and where RFQ was lower than RFV, dairy cows would not have
milked as expected.
Summary
Due to the digestible fiber component, RFQ seems to predict animal
performance better than RFV. It appears that RFQ and RFV average about the
same, so RFQ can be substituted for RFV in pricing, contracts, and other
uses. Note: Table 4 shows there is a large variation in cost per day for the
diets—they range from 59 cents to $2.14 per day. If the cows were fed for
120 days, the high-cost diet for the dry cow would be $186 more (per cow)
than the low-cost diet. That difference could certainly “make or break” your
profit situation!
Where to Get Help
For more information about Relative Forage Quality, contact the local
office of the Natural Resources Conservation Service or University of
Illinois Extension.
Acknowledgments
Information in this fact sheet was adapted from material and work by Dr.
Dan Undersander, agronomist, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
The U.S. Department
of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its programs
and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin,
sex, religion, age, disability, political beliefs, sexual orientation,
or marital or family status. (Not all prohibited bases apply
to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require alternative
means for communication of program information (Braille, large
print, audio tape, etc.) should contact USDAs TARGET Center
at 202-720-2600 (voice and TDD).
To file a complaint of discrimination,
write USDA, Director, Office of Civil Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten
Building, 1400 Independence Avenue, SW, Washington, DC 20250-9410
or call (202) 720-5964 (voice and TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer. |
Download
This Factsheet
PDF |
< Back to Grazing Index
| |
|